entails a violation of the obligation to ensure their right to life recognized in Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. The obligation to ensure this right by an effective investigation is analyzed in Chapter XI of this Judgment, while the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of the next of kin of these victims is examined in Chapter XIII infra. B. Regarding the presumed disappearance and extrajudicial execution of Carlos Horacio Urán B.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 328. The Commission concluded that Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas was in the Palace of Justice and left it alive “in the custody of the Army, with non-lethal injuries, so that his death did not occur during the taking or the retaking” of the Palace. In this regard, it stated that, “after he had been disappeared, he was executed and his body was washed and stripped of some of his personal items before being sent to the Institute of Forensic Medicine where it was placed among the corpses of the guerrillas and returned to his family on November 8, 1985.” It affirmed that even though “he was disappeared for a short time, this does not prevent the constitution of the crime of forced disappearance.” 329. The representatives argued that Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas left the Palace of Justice alive “in the hands of members of the armed forces after it had been retaken on November 7, 1985,” because he was considered a special hostage. They indicated that once the military operation ended, family members and friends “undertook a harrowing search to find him, which included the Casa del Florero, the morgue, the Military Hospital, and even the Palace of Justice itself,” without success owing to the State’s refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of his liberty. They therefore argued that between the time he left the Palace alive and the moment when his body was discovered in the Institute of Forensic Medicine he was a victim of forced disappearance. They also emphasized that the first autopsy report recorded that the body of Mr. Urán Rojas revealed that his death had been caused by a bullet wound to the head caused by a gun fired at close range. 330. The State indicated that “it has been established that the lifeless body of the Justice was found inside the Palace of Justice on November 7, 1985, and the investigations have not been able to establish the circumstances in which his death occurred, owing to the errors committed in the processing of the scene of the events and the unjustified delay in the investigations.” Thus, it affirmed that “in this specific case, given its particularities and the consequences of the lack of results in the investigation, [its] acknowledgement of responsibility [is] by omission.” Nevertheless, it denied that Mr. Urán Rojas had been a victim of forced disappearance or of extrajudicial execution, because “there is insufficient evidence to establish whether or not the Justice left the Palace of Justice alive.” B.2) Considerations of the Court 331. It is an uncontested fact that, in the final moments of the operation to retake the Palace of Justice, Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas was in the bathroom between the second and third floors 505 (supra paras. 101 and 102). However, there is contradictory information as to what occurred subsequently. In this section, first the Court will analyze the evidence according to which Mr. Urán Rojas died inside the Palace of Justice and, second, it will examine the evidence according to which, having survived the events of the Palace of Justice, he was then the victim of extrajudicial execution and subsequently his body was again placed in the Palace of Justice, as alleged by the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 328 and 329). Third, the Court will examine the autopsies of the remains of 505 Cf. Testimony of Samuel Buitrago Hurtado of November 20, 1985, before the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folios 30621 and 30623), and video statement of Nicolás Pájaro of November 2, 2007 (evidence file, folio 15012). 115